PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

DELFIN CALISO
G.R. No. 183830              
October 19, 2011
Bersamin, J.

Facts:
Delfin Caliso was arraigned for rape with homicide. He is alleged to have had carnal knowledge with
AAA, a 16 years old and mentally retarded girl. On the occasion of rape, he attacked, assaulted and
used personal violence upon AAA by mauling her, pulling her towards a muddy water and submerging
her underneath, which caused the death of AAA.

The lone eyewitness, 34-year old Soledad Amegable (Amegable), had been clearing her farm when
she heard the anguished cries. The cries came from an area with lush bamboo growth that made it
difficult for Amegable to see what was going on. Amegable subsequently heard sounds of beating and
mauling that soon ended the girl’s cries. She then proceeded to get a better glimpse of what was
happening, hiding behind a cluster of banana trees in order not to be seen, and from there she saw a
man wearing gray short pants bearing the number "11" mark, who dragged a girl’s limp body into the
river, where he submerged the girl into the knee-high muddy water and stood over her body; that he
later lifted the limp body and tossed it to deeper water; that he next jumped into the other side of the
river. In that whole time, Amegable could not have a look at his face because he always had his back
turned towards her; that she nonetheless insisted that the man was Caliso, whose physical features
she was familiar with due to having seen him pass by their barangay several times prior to the incident; 

SPO3 Romulo R. Pancipanci declared in an affidavit that upon his station receiving the incident report
on AAA’s death, he and two other officers proceeded to the crime scene to investigate. He interviewed
Amegable who identified the killer by his physical features and clothing (short pants); that based on
such information, he traced Caliso as AAA’s killer; and that Caliso gave an extrajudicial admission of
the killing of AAA. However, the declarations in the affidavit remained worthless because the
Prosecution did not present SPO3 Pancipanci as its witness.

Leo Bering, the barangay chairman, attested that on the occasion of Caliso’s arrest and his custodial
interrogation, he heard Caliso admit to the investigating police officer the ownership of the short pants
recovered from the crime scene. Caliso denied the accusation and interposed an alibi, insisting that on
the day of the killing, he plowed the rice field of Alac Yangyang from 7:00 am until 4:00 pm. Yangyang
corroborated Caliso’s alibi, recalling that Caliso had plowed his rice field from 8 am to 4 pm. He further
recalled that Caliso was in his farm around 12:00 noon because he brought lunch to Caliso. He
conceded, however, that he was not aware where Caliso was at the time of the killing.

The RTC found Caliso guilty of committing the crime of murder. It found that rape could not be
complexed with the killing of AAA because the evidence could not establish the commission of carnal
knowledge. The CA affirmed Caliso’s conviction for murder but modified the sentence from death to
reclusion perpetua.

Issue:
Whether or not Amegable’s identification of Caliso as the man who killed AAA was positive and reliable.

Decision:
NO, the Court considers the identification not reliable and beyond doubt as to meet the requirement of
moral certainty.

In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to
prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can
be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court has distinguished two types of positive identification in People v. Gallarde, to wit:

xxx Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per

se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are
two types of positive identification. A witness may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal
case as the perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the
crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a
witness may not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may still
be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for
instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim
immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the second type of
positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken
together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and
reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of
all others.

Furthermore, the test to determine the moral certainty of an identification is its imperviousness to
skepticism on account of its distinctiveness. To achieve such distinctiveness, the identification evidence
should encompass unique physical features or characteristics, like the face, the voice, the dentures, the
distinguishing marks or tattoos on the body, fingerprints, DNA, or any other physical facts that set the
individual apart from the rest of humanity. A witness’ familiarity with the accused, although accepted as
basis for a positive identification, does not always pass the test of moral certainty due to the possibility
of mistake.

In this case, no matter how honest Amegable’s testimony might have been, her identification of Caliso
by a sheer look at his back for a few minutes could not be regarded as positive enough to generate that
moral certainty about Caliso being the perpetrator of the killing, absent other reliable circumstances
showing him to be AAA’s killer. Her identification of him in that manner lacked the qualities of exclusivity
and uniqueness, even as it did not rule out her being mistaken.

In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused’s
constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is
entitled to an acquittal, though his innocence may be doubted. The constitutional presumption of
innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused
must rest not on the weakness of the defense he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the
Prosecution.